As companies begin to compete supply chain to supply chain, the barriers will be removed; everyone no matter how far up or down the chain will be expected to be ready to respond to customers' demands.
In simpler times, manufacturers were content to be seamlessly connected with just the parties a link or two away in the supply chain—typically the warehouse and the retailer. But soon that will no longer be enough. As companies begin to compete supply chain to supply chain, the barriers will be removed; everyone—no matter how far up or down the chain—will be expected to be ready to respond to customers' demands. The instant a package of diapers is scanned at, say, a Target or Wal-Mart store, data on the purchase will reverberate through the chain, notifying the buyers, the warehouse, the manufacturer and suppliers all the way back to the plants that make the Triple Leak Shields. Each one will need to be poised and ready to react. It's a future that requires new skills and a new focus. Kimberly-Clark Corp. is at the forefront of this new way of competing. In fact, this is where it's staking its future.
That's why we're focusing our activities on creating capabilities—products, processes and tools— that will ensure leadership for both ourselves and our supply chain partners. Kimberly-Clark defines a successful supply chain as one that leverages the integration between key trading partners to create processes and capabilities that enable us to be first to market with our products at the lowest total delivered cost.
Together we make decisions on minimizing total supply chain costs. In this collaborative model, world-class supply is recognized as a key process for the organization.
We believe that such leadership has to start at the top. At Kimberly-Clark, the CEO, CFO and CIO all understand the enablers of and the obstacles to an efficient supply chain. They also recognize that the supply chain is an integral part of the marketing mix. In an environment characterized by short product life cycles and a dynamic competitive landscape, business leaders are increasingly relying on the supply chain to deliver results. For instance, our diapers undergo two major product improvements per year.Managing these dynamic changes requires a supply chain that is synchronized from source to consumer.
The link between corporate and logistics strategy is iterative. First, the corporate strategy has to be set, with an understanding of what is physically possible in the supply chain. Second, a logistics or supply chain strategy has to be developed that will enable and support the corporate strategy. Changes in one will affect the other. Failure to align the strategies will lead to chaos.
Our goal in the Consumer Logistics groups is to support the top- and bottom-line growth objectives for both Kimberly-Clark and our customers. To do so, we must drive changes in our business processes, systems and organizational structure to take the performance of Kimberly-Clark's supply chain to "best of class" in our industry. This requires us to make decisions as a supply chain and work in concert with our trading partners.
We are addressing this challenge in a variety of ways. Currently we have eight elements that support this strategy. A brief description of the following three elements illustrates our focus.
Process mapping. Process mapping provides insight into total supply chain costs. Kimberly-Clark has also deployed customer-focused resources to gain a more in-depth understanding of its customers' business strategies and cost drivers by using this technique. Through these relationships we also gained trust, which is a huge benefit when you're trying to drive change in the supply chain.
The first step is to map our "as is" processes and see how they align with our overall corporate and supply chain strategies. Through this we identify disconnects in the current process. The team then develops the "should" process to eliminate disconnects and identify opportunities to achieve a "step change" in performance. We used this process to address an accounts payable issue with one of our key vendors. As a result of mapping the process and correcting disconnects, invoice backlogs are down by 35 percent.
It's worth noting that not all processes are the same. Each process has to take into account the customer's individual needs. And the level of analysis of each process can vary. For instance, macro level process maps for two customers may look very similar. However, as we get closer to the details of exactly how we are going to integrate our processes, we often find significant differences between customers.
Activity-based costing. Using activitybased costing (ABC) and benchmarking (internal and external) for our customer replenishment process was key in identifying opportunities to stamp out inefficient practices. We developed our initial costing model over seven years ago and continue to refine it. To date we have saved over $40 million through opportunities identified using information from our ABC model. Our next step is to partner with a customer to develop an integrated ABC/ABM (activity-based management) model to drive results.
In many cases, it's the simple things that drive up costs in a supply chain. By using ABC information, conducting an economic order quantity analysis and sharing best practices, we identified more than $800,000 of total supply chain cost savings with one of our key customers. The two teams recommended some changes in economic order multiples and the elimination of pallets along with changes in receiving practices and equipment. On our side we reduced loading labor and the cost of pallets. The customer, which backhauled our product to its DCs, gained larger pick-up allowances (based on cubes per truck), cut transport costs and reduced order processing costs. It is these types of wins that help us cut total logistics costs and deliver the product to the shelf more efficiently.
While we certainly want to minimize our costs, we also have to realize that at times it's more efficient for us to bear that burden. As an example, some of our customers asked that we establish a direct store delivery program to support a promotional event. It cost us more to do it but was more efficient than sending the product through their systems. As in any partnership, sometimes you have to invest for the long term.
Promotional event collaboration. As a contributing member of the committee that developed the collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR) process, we have long recognized the importance of collaboration in aligning and synchronizing demand signals. One of our key areas of focus is promotional event collaboration. Promotional events often make or break supply chain performance. The volume lift coupled with the collapsed time frame make accurate forecasting and a detailed replenishment strategy crucial to success.
Agreeing to price points, volume lift assumptions and replenishment plans sounds simple, but often trading partners remain out of synch. Our CPFR team developed processes and tools to improve event planning. By using this process, we improved event forecasting accuracy and post-ad in-stock levels by 10 percent for several of our largest customers. This means products on the shelf when needed, which leads to better sales.
As for the future, Kimberly-Clark foresees a continued focus on challenging the way we manage our supply chain to drive down costs while improving performance. Increased responsiveness and better information will fuel this effort. We're driving process development and customer partnerships to achieve improvement in these areas.
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."